Mazda 3 2019 vs Alfa Romeo Giulia 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.9 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 122 HP | 510 HP | |
| Torque: | 213 NM | 600 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 3.9 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo Giulia is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 388 HP less power than Alfa Romeo Giulia, whereas torque is 387 NM less than Alfa Romeo Giulia. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 6.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 11.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 2.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Alfa Romeo Giulia, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 405 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 5.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Alfa Romeo Giulia. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 920 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 1100 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 480 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 3) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Alfa Romeo Giulia) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.43 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 2 cm longer than the Alfa Romeo Giulia, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 450 litres | 480 litres | |
|
Alfa Romeo Giulia has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, This could mean that the Mazda 3 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10.8 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 1`902 kg | 2`150 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`383 kg | 1`620 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 519 kg | 530 kg | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 3 scores higher in safety tests, but Alfa Romeo Giulia is better rated in child safety tests. The Mazda 3 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 14 800 | 20 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Alfa Romeo Giulia has
| |